Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[uke2se]

Let's see if anything has changed here lately. Joo haters talking to people who can't give a straight answer. Nope. Nothing has changed.

Who can't give a straight answer to what?

 

[TSR]

.
Why do you ask?
.

 

[Dogzilla]

As I recall, Dogzilla already tried this "without a trace" gambit earlier in this thread and was shown to be lying back then. How anyone can take him seriously now is beyond me.

This is why everybody laughs at you....

It wasn't me who said that bodies disappeared without a trace. From Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka: The Action Reinhard Death Camps:

"...Himmler decided that the corpses of Jews and the Red Army prisoners who had been shot in Soviet-occupied territories and buried there in mass graves should be removed and all traces of the killing should be erased." p 170

"The idea of burning the bodies of Nazi Germany's victims in Eastern Europe to erase any traces of the crimes..." p 170

"...formerly appointed Blobel the task of covering up the traces of the mass executions carried out by the Einsatzgruppen in the East."

"At the conclusion of the successful experiments, the SS had found a simple and efficient way to erase their crimes" p 171

"The Germans then started to erase systematically the trails of their crimes." p 173

"....who was very sensitive about the erasure of the crimes committed by Nazi Germany..." p 174

"....this leaves Sobibor as the only camp where the transport from Vilna could have been brought and annihilated without a trace." p 137

"However, these diggings and searches endangered the German intent to erase the traces of their crimes and hid the very fact of the existence of a death camp in Belzec" p 371

I think your problem is reading comprehension. Sometimes I'll repeat the idiocy that holocaust historians have written, e.g., the ludicrous testimony about erasing the evidence of hundreds of thousands of bodies. If you mistakenly believe that I'm the one who is advocating the magical disappearing bodies, your stupid-detector is activated and you correctly identify the lunacy. If you read what I wrote correctly and had more than a layman's knowledge of the holocaust, you would know that I'm repeating the nonsense that the holocaust scholars have written. In that case, your stupid-detector would be deactivated and the only reason to question the magical disappearing bodies is personal incredulity borne from hating the Jews.

BTW, that's what those of us in the industry call a double-standard.

 

[uke2se]

This is why everybody laughs at you....

Heh, could have sworn it was you who everyone was laughing at. What with your zany conspiracy theories and seeming inability to grasp simple historical facts. You do understand that the Nazis striving to erase the traces of their crimes doesn't mean that they actually succeeded, don't you? Man, that was a dumb question. Of course you don't.

By the way, I hardly think you can call holocaust denial an industry. Sure, it makes a few gurus lots of money from book sales to the stupid people who lap up their crap, but a few rich white guys an industry does not make.

 

[Nick Terry]

It wasn't me who said that bodies disappeared without a trace.

Uh, yes it was. Nowhere in this post did you attribute the view that "bodies disappeared without a trace" to anyone else. The only reasonable conclusion is that the notion of "bodies disappearing without a trace" is your personal viewpoint. You've repeated it often enough that it would be foolish for you to deny this.

Of course, being a scumsucking liar (great phrase, Clayton!), you now try and weasel out of this by attributing identical views to Arad by quoting various bits of a book written 42 years after the end of the war, and now nearly a quarter of a century ago.

This doesn't get you very far since it takes approximately 10 seconds to link to the summary of the Polish investigation in 1945, which very clearly described finding "traces" of more than one kind. It doesn't matter whether you say there were no traces, or claim that someone else said there were no traces, any such claim would be flatly wrong. End of story.

Quite a few of your quotes look like they're dragged screaming out of context, especially the p.371 quote about graverobbing. Indeed Arad goes on to discuss the graverobbing in more detail on p.379. But I'll grant you that an especially dim troglodyte could be misled by the fact that he doesn't have a whole chapter on mass graves for you to slobber over.

Before you start yelping further, perhaps you need also to read through Rueckerl's 1977 book on the trial of Reinhard SS men, which quotes at length from the forensic reports and thus discussed this issue before Arad (by a decade). And then to read Arad discussing mass graves in his book on the Holocaust in the Soviet Union, writing 20 years later.

It's funny, pretty much the first thing drummed out of a fresher in their first month at university is that you need to read several sources before writing something, but time and again all we get from Dogzilla is a highly tenuous interpretation of one source, which is then parlayed into a meta-claim about the entirety of Holocaust historiography.

Don't think people can't spot this, Dogzilla.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Are the replies on this page examples of people not giving straight answers? The replies seem direct, to the point, thorough enough to me. But then again I don't pop in here every so often to misunderstand the discussion; I prefer staying with it and following it all along.

 

[Dogzilla]

Uh, yes it was. Nowhere in this post did you attribute the view that "bodies disappeared without a trace" to anyone else. The only reasonable conclusion is that the notion of "bodies disappearing without a trace" is your personal viewpoint. You've repeated it often enough that it would be foolish for you to deny this.

And what is the difference in meaning between "bodies disappeared without a trace" and a phrase such as "erase any traces of the crimes"?

Of course, being a scumsucking liar (great phrase, Clayton!), you now try and weasel out of this by attributing identical views to Arad by quoting various bits of a book written 42 years after the end of the war, and now nearly a quarter of a century ago.

Ah yes, the patented Nick Terry dismissal of any source which proves him wrong. If we keep this up long enough you might just deem every major work on the holocaust irrelevant.

This doesn't get you very far since it takes approximately 10 seconds to link to the summary of the Polish investigation in 1945, which very clearly described finding "traces" of more than one kind. It doesn't matter whether you say there were no traces, or claim that someone else said there were no traces, any such claim would be flatly wrong. End of story.

Well of course it would be flat wrong. Nobody can eliminate all traces of hundreds of thousands of bodies buried within an area no larger than twenty acres or so. That doesn't means it's never been claimed and it doesn't mean that the exact opposite claims haven't been made. The holocaust is nothing if it isn't a bundle of contradictions.

Quite a few of your quotes look like they're dragged screaming out of context, especially the p.371 quote about graverobbing. Indeed Arad goes on to discuss the graverobbing in more detail on p.379. But I'll grant you that an especially dim troglodyte could be misled by the fact that he doesn't have a whole chapter on mass graves for you to slobber over.

Quite a few or none. I guess that's close.

Before you start yelping further, perhaps you need also to read through Rueckerl's 1977 book on the trial of Reinhard SS men, which quotes at length from the forensic reports and thus discussed this issue before Arad (by a decade). And then to read Arad discussing mass graves in his book on the Holocaust in the Soviet Union, writing 20 years later.

It's funny, pretty much the first thing drummed out of a fresher in their first month at university is that you need to read several sources before writing something, but time and again all we get from Dogzilla is a highly tenuous interpretation of one source, which is then parlayed into a meta-claim about the entirety of Holocaust historiography.

Don't think people can't spot this, Dogzilla.

And of course the followup to dismissing the sources, referral to the newer and more obscure source that it is all the rage in the holocaust scholar community. I asked you this before but you ran from it then: Which books about the holocaust are reliable? Has anybody written a book about the holocaust that can be assumed to be accurate or must we consider everything we read in one book to be tentative until we can cross reference with another source?

 

[Dogzilla]

Who asked for an example of any historian citing "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence?"

I found this over on Lipstadt's Holocaust on Trial website:

"Further, it is an accepted historical axiom that "absence of proof is not proof of absence." This means that even if Hitler did sign an official order it would have been one of the first documents destroyed and would be unlikely to have been found after the war. The Holocaust deniers want you to believe the opposite reasoning that does not hold up under scrutiny and the preponderance of evidence."

I predict some knucklehead will tell me that "evidence" and "proof" aren't the same thing and that Lipstadt isn't a historian. Oh well. Everybody can see through that smokescreen.

I'll link to the actual page in the future. Right now the HDOT website isn't working for me.

 

[Saggy]

Has anybody written a book about the holocaust that can be assumed to be accurate or must we consider everything we read in one book to be tentative until we can cross reference with another source?

NT can't name a single book, he can't name a single Jewish witness.

However, Yehuda Bauer, director of Yad Vashem, is not so circumspect, and he has written that Filip Meuller's book "Three Years in a Gas Chamber and All I Got was This Teeshirt" is the only credible book written by a Jewish eyewitness.

Why not read that one? If you do, you'll know that the holohoax, and everyone defending it, is ..... well, draw your own conclusion.

 

[uke2se]

And what is the difference in meaning between "bodies disappeared without a trace" and a phrase such as "erase any traces of the crimes"?

You don't get it do you? The Nazis tried to erase all trace of their crime. They failed. This means that nobody vanished without a trace like you said. There were plenty of traces left.

This isn't hard to understand, and I can't believe you are failing this hard.

 

[uke2se]

NT can't name a single book, he can't name a single Jewish witness.

Except for the 200 he has named. Keep lying, Saggs. It destroys your position gradually with every post you make.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Except for the 200 he has named. Keep lying, Saggs. It destroys your position gradually with every post you make.

He is still ignoring Oscar Strawczynski too. It is easy to understand why. Among other witnesses, Strawczynski is not a liar, pathological or otherwise, and that is why Saggy makes no effort to defend his claims on this score.

 

[Nick Terry]

And what is the difference in meaning between "bodies disappeared without a trace" and a phrase such as "erase any traces of the crimes"?

One is a modified noun and the other is a modified verb. Your first two quotes from p.170 speak of an 'order' and an 'idea' to 'erase'. As uke2se said above, the Nazis tried to erase the evidence of their crimes, but failed.

Ah yes, the patented Nick Terry dismissal of any source which proves him wrong. If we keep this up long enough you might just deem every major work on the holocaust irrelevant.

It would be very surprising if our knowledge of any historical event had stayed entirely static over a quarter of a century.

Moreover: Arad is a secondary source; the primary sources will always have primacy on something like this.

Well of course it would be flat wrong. Nobody can eliminate all traces of hundreds of thousands of bodies buried within an area no larger than twenty acres or so. That doesn't means it's never been claimed and it doesn't mean that the exact opposite claims haven't been made. The holocaust is nothing if it isn't a bundle of contradictions.

Meaningless waffle.

Quite a few or none. I guess that's close.

Meaningless waffle.

And of course the followup to dismissing the sources, referral to the newer and more obscure source that it is all the rage in the holocaust scholar community.

I suggest you look at Arad's bibliography, he lists Rueckerl's NS-Vernichtungslager and cites it on a number of occasions. Since it was a much reprinted dtv paperback it's hardly 'obscure'.

I do find it funny that you also try to handwave away Arad's own later writings. His book on the Holocaust in the Soviet Union is published in the Comprehensive History of the Holocaust series. I am critical of this book in other ways, but one thing which cannot be said is that he didn't address the mass graves/1005 issue.

I asked you this before but you ran from it then: Which books about the holocaust are reliable? Has anybody written a book about the holocaust that can be assumed to be accurate or must we consider everything we read in one book to be tentative until we can cross reference with another source?

The latter is the only acceptable method in academic history (and academia as a whole).

You know full well that there is now a literature within archaeology on the mass graves of the Reinhard camps. On an issue like the one you raise it is a fairly basic fail to ignore it, which you did in your handwaving above.

Archaeology emphasises physical evidence, whereas conventional history generally doesn't. Therefore it is no surprise that on an issue like mass graves, some historians will end up being sloppy. Arguably most historians since there aren't any set rules dictated by the American Historical Association or anyone else about how to write about mass murder (which, as much as you want to ignore this, is quite a common theme in 20th Century history) or whether to mention mass graves or not.

As for reliability, on the Holocaust as with cars and many other products, it's the Germans who are most reliable, IMHO. Their academic culture prizes empirical detail far more than Anglo-American academic history, some say to an excess. The books are longer and more comprehensive. As they say, when it comes to craftsmanship, you can't beat the Germans for quality. And history is nothing if not a craft.

 

[Nick Terry]

Who asked for an example of any historian citing "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence?"

I found this over on Lipstadt's Holocaust on Trial website:

"Further, it is an accepted historical axiom that "absence of proof is not proof of absence." This means that even if Hitler did sign an official order it would have been one of the first documents destroyed and would be unlikely to have been found after the war. The Holocaust deniers want you to believe the opposite reasoning that does not hold up under scrutiny and the preponderance of evidence."

I predict some knucklehead will tell me that "evidence" and "proof" aren't the same thing and that Lipstadt isn't a historian. Oh well. Everybody can see through that smokescreen.

I'll link to the actual page in the future. Right now the HDOT website isn't working for me.

Indeed, proof and evidence are not the same thing.

As was pointed out at least twice in previous pages, there is copious evidence of a Hitler order because numerous contemporary written sources refer to it (especially statements by Himmler). There is no absence of evidence regarding the Hitler order. The order itself is absent, but this never stopped any other historian or scholar inferring the existence of something that was missing from other sources.

There is by contrast a total absence of evidence supporting the frequently made claim that JFK was assassinated as part of a conspiracy.

But hey, you're really rocking now. All of two hits, both from non-professionals (those HDOT pages weren't written by Lipstadt herself, something I know for a fact).

I'd suggest you order up a copy of David Hackett Fischer's Historian's Fallacies and read what he had to say about 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' way back in the early 70s.

 

[Corsair 115]

NT can't name a single book, he can't name a single Jewish witness.

And you still haven't named a single book or credible witness to this fantastical worldwide Jewish conspiracy of yours which controls the media and everything else.

(You didn't think I had let this point go, did you? I'm a dog with a bone, and you yourself handed me that bone. I'm going to gnaw on it every time you make statements like the one quoted above. I will not let you escape from your evidentiary double standard and will remind the readers of this thread of it every time you make it relevant to do so, such as with your quoted comment.)

 

[uke2se]

And you still haven't named a single book or credible witness to this fantastical worldwide Jewish conspiracy of yours which controls the media and everything else.

(You didn't think I had let this point go, did you? I'm a dog with a bone, and you yourself handed me that bone. I'm going to gnaw on it every time you make statements like the one quoted above. I will not let you escape from your evidentiary double standard and will remind the readers of this thread of it every time you make it relevant to do so, such as with your quoted comment.)

As it stands, it's not even a double standard, but much more pathetic. It's a complete reversal of reality, as Nick has indeed provided many names (200+) of Jewish and non-Jewish witnesses which Saggy has failed miserably to adress (instead opting to close his eyes completely and repeat that no names has been presented). All the while, Saggy has indeed not presented any evidence for his many assertions (lies really, as there is no evidence supporting Saggy).

 

[LemmyCaution]

As it stands, it's not even a double standard, but much more pathetic. It's a complete reversal of reality, as Nick has indeed provided many names (200+) of Jewish and non-Jewish witnesses which Saggy has failed miserably to adress (instead opting to close his eyes completely and repeat that no names has been presented). All the while, Saggy has indeed not presented any evidence for his many assertions (lies really, as there is no evidence supporting Saggy).

If Saggy would take up Nick's names, as many as Saggy wishes (I have suggested a name a number of times, since Saggy said he wanted just one), and try to make a case in favor of their being "pathological liars," this might rise to the level of a discussion instead of a sad, ritualistic repetition by Saggy of a unsubstantiated claim that has the character of outright mendacity. The only liar here is Saggy, repeating a claim he will not and cannot defend, over and over.

 

[Clayton Moore]

He is still ignoring Oscar Strawczynski too. It is easy to understand why. Among other witnesses, Strawczynski is not a liar, pathological or otherwise, and that is why Saggy makes no effort to defend his claims on this score.

You mean Oscar Strawczynski the numbskull liar?

Oscar Strawczynski outlined what the Germans did:


“At first they wanted to persuade us with nice words. An important person from Lublin came to the camp, gathered us together and spoke to us. We were told that a “Jewish city” was being established and that the Jews would be granted full autonomy there, and if we would work with dedication and earn their trust we would receive leadership positions in the Jewish city.



When the nice words did not help, they began to threaten us. They announced that if the escape attempts continued, they would strip us and we would have to work naked, and that attempted escape would be punished by death by torture, because we had violated the trust that had been placed in us.



To demonstrate that these were not idle threats, the next day two young boys were stopped and accused of having planned an escape from the camp. In the centre of the roll-call square, a gallows was built and all the prisoners were gathered around it.



The commander gave a short speech on the punishment of the escapees and the two boys were hung naked by their feet. The Germans whipped their swinging bodies for about half an hour, until one of the Germans pulled a gun and shot them.”

 

[uke2se]

You mean Oscar Strawczynski the numbskull liar?

Maybe you'd like to point out the lies in the part you quoted, with evidence that it was indeed a lie?

No?

Well, in that case it appears that when you call someone a "numbskull liar" it actually means that you have nothing to contribute to the dicussion about the subject that you have admitted to knowing absolutely nothing about.

Alternatively, you're trying to be as offensive as possible while staying within the MA. Mods have a way of catching on to such antics. Keep it up and kiss your membership goodbye.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Maybe you'd like to point out the lies in the part you quoted, with evidence that it was indeed a lie?

No?

Well, in that case it appears that when you call someone a "numbskull liar" it actually means that you have nothing to contribute to the dicussion about the subject that you have admitted to knowing absolutely nothing about.

Alternatively, you're trying to be as offensive as possible while staying within the MA. Mods have a way of catching on to such antics. Keep it up and kiss your membership goodbye.

Baiting? Veiled threat? You authorized to speak for the site?

If that had happened to 2 young boys the prison population would have ignored their own safety and attacked the guards.

Working naked? Were not the prisoners who did work bussed to near by location and returned daily?

The goofy testimonies chosen to portray the Germans as insane animals are the idlings of morons.